Thailand and Cambodia to deploy ceasefire monitors despite deadlock over captured soldiers
KUALA LUMPUR--Thailand and Cambodia agreed Thursday to establish interim observer teams to monitor a fragile ceasefire that ended five days of of deadly armed border clashes, even as the fate of 18 Cambodian soldiers captured by Thailand remains unresolved.
The first meeting of the General Border Committee concluded after four days of talks in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, with a focus on ensuring the full implementation of the ceasefire brokered by Malaysia on July 28.
Dozens of people were killed and over 260,000 displaced on both sides of the Thai-Cambodian border, when fighting began after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers.
According to a joint statement from the committee, each country will set up its own interim observer team comprising defense officials from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and coordinated by the bloc's annual chair Malaysia, pending the deployment of a formal ASEAN observer mission. The interim teams will operate within their respective borders and work closely with local military authorities.
The main meeting Thursday was chaired by Cambodian Defense Minister Gen. Tea Seiha and Thailand's Deputy Defense Minister Gen. Natthaphon Nakpanit. Malaysian Defense Minister Mohamed Khaled Nordin, along with representatives from the U.S. and China, attended as observers.
U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia Edgard D. Kagan said after the meeting that the outcome was an important milestone.
'The U.S. believes this is an important step. However it's important to recognize this is only a step. The goal here is a durable sustainable ceasefire, one that is able to be accepted and enforced by both sides,' he told reporters. He said the U.S. would work closely with Malaysia and ASEAN to monitor the truce.
The July 28 ceasefire followed economic pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who had warned the warring nations that the U.S. would not conclude trade deals with them if the fighting persisted. Washington lowered tariffs on goods from the two countries from 36% to 19% on Aug. 1.
However, tensions persisted as each country accused the other of violating the agreements and organized tours of the former battle areas for foreign diplomats and other observers to highlight damage allegedly caused by the other side.
The two countries also continued to accuse each other of having violated international humanitarian laws with attacks on civilians and the use of illegal weapons.
While both sides reaffirmed commitments to halt hostilities, freeze troop movement and avoid provocations, the issue of the 18 Cambodian soldiers captured just hours after the ceasefire took effect remains a sticking point. The joint statement did not directly mention them but it noted that the captives should be 'immediately released and repatriated after the cessation of active hostilities.' It didn't clarify whether this refers to a formal end to the conflict.
Cambodia had accused Thailand of mistreating the captured men. Two wounded members of the 20-man Cambodian group were repatriated on Friday.
Thai authorities, however, called the group 'prisoners of war' and said they would only be freed and repatriated following an end to the conflict.
The Thai foreign ministry said in a separate statement Thursday that the 18 prisoners have been treated in full compliance with international humanitarian law. It said members of the International Committee of the Red Cross had visited them on Tuesday at their detention facility, and that the men were in good health and without any injury.
Cambodia and Thailand have clashed in the past over their 800-kilometer (500-mile) border. Tensions had been growing since May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a confrontation that created a diplomatic rift and roiled Thailand's domestic politics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
14 hours ago
- The Diplomat
The Paradox of Youth Engagement in Southeast Asian Peace and Security
Despite structural constraints on institutional engagement, young people across the region are not waiting for permission to contribute to peace. One thing that was drilled to me when I was in [university] was that we [as student activists in the 1990s] are agents of change. I think any student, everybody would say that youth are agents of change because you're still young, you're learning, and then eventually you will end up, hopefully, being in positions of … importance. This quote comes from an institutional representative from ASEAN, now in his 40s, reflecting in an interview with the authors about his time as a young person who participated in the 1998 student-led movement that ended the 30-year rule of General Suharto in Indonesia. He was subsequently inspired to work at an institutional level to impact development and peace. This evolution, from student activist to institutional representative, illustrates an overlooked feature of regional governance: that many of those now making the 'rules' were, earlier in their life, those who were organizing to break them. In our recent article in The Pacific Review, we refer to this as the paradox of youth engagement in Southeast Asia. The political engagement of young people has deep roots across the region. Long before formalized youth agendas appeared, young leaders were shaping the regional political landscape. In Indonesia, youth movements such as the kaum muda played a defining role in the anti-colonial struggle and later in pivotal moments of political transition. In Malaysia, student activism in the 1960s and 1970s pushed for social justice and gave voice to under-served communities. In the Philippines, young people played a central role in the anti-dictatorship resistance during martial law and the broader movement for national democracy. Time and again, youth have been critical actors in reshaping political futures across Southeast Asia. This history laid the foundation for current debates about youth participation and leadership in peace and security in the region. This year, 2025, marks a decade since the adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace, and Security, which represented the first international framework to recognize young people's positive and central role in peace and security. Over the past decade, this agenda has been institutionalized and localized. ASEAN has recently experienced significant momentum in this area, with developments including the 2021 ASEAN Regional Forum Joint Statement on Youth, Peace, and Security and the Track 1.5 Dialogue of the ASEAN-IPR-UN Regional Workshop on Youth, Peace, and Security in 2022. Amid this growing regional institutional focus on youth in peace and security, the paradox of youth engagement is brought into sharp relief. Youth are increasingly recognized yet remain marginalized in practice. Understanding the current dynamics of regional peace and security can be enhanced through situating the youth leadership of today within its unique historical context in the region. Despite formal recognition through the Youth, Peace, and Security agenda, many young people in Southeast Asia continue to face what 'The Missing Peace' (the first progress study on Youth, Peace, and Security) in 2018 labeled the 'violence of exclusion.' This refers to the structural and psychological barriers that prevent meaningful youth participation in peace and security. Rooted in mistrust and reinforced through political, economic, and cultural systems, this form of exclusion limits access to decision-making and resources. Importantly, this exclusion is not only passive. It is actively reproduced through the rules and practices of institutions that restrict access, such as accreditation requirements for civil society, limited funding for youth-led initiatives, and tightly-managed engagement channels. Even when young people are invited to participate, they often face strict selection criteria, such as English fluency or institutional affiliation, which routinely excludes those most affected by conflict and marginalization. This creates a troubling disconnect. Further, within many Asian socio-cultural contexts, 'traditional' privileges are embedded within age, gender and seniority, and reflected within institutional systems. Although ASEAN has forwarded an institutional narrative of a 'durable ecosystem of peace,' this may obscure deeper inequalities and exclusions. Many young people who contributed to peacebuilding efforts in the region during post-conflict transitions, natural disasters, or periods of democratic reform have been left outside of formal regional governance processes. In taking the 'violence of exclusion' experienced by young people seriously, Southeast Asia presents an opportunity to examine how historical and contemporary political dynamics intersect with the persistence of colonial frames and discourses. These are reflected within the region's colonial legacies of hierarchies of race, class, gender, and generational authority, which laid the groundwork for current institutional structures that favour seniority and elite participation. Regional institutional representatives often recognize this contradiction experienced by contemporary youth. They understand the value of youth inclusion because they have lived it themselves. Many shared in interviews with the authors how their earlier activism informed their current roles. Yet despite their belief in youth leadership, they often find themselves conflicted and constrained by institutional systems, hierarchy, and rigid policymaking environments. This disconnect lies at the heart of the paradox: the very systems that once resisted youth are now led by former youth activists, yet the bureaucracies policymakers now navigate still operate with constraints toward youth-driven movements. Exclusion becomes systemic – sustained through lack of funding, limited access to policymaking spaces, and persistent doubts about youth credibility, particularly in the political-security domain. Youth exclusion in Southeast Asia is not a static phenomenon but one that is deeply entangled with shifting forms of power. Yet despite these complex issues around institutional engagement, young people across the region are not waiting for permission to contribute to peace. This is evident in movements such as the Milk Tea Alliance, which unites youth activists across borders in their pursuit of democracy and human rights, as well as in young women mediators conducting inter-religious dialogues. In the Philippines, youth helped drive support for the Bangsamoro peace process. In Myanmar, young people are at the forefront of the ongoing resistance against authoritarian rule. These efforts often unfold outside of institutional frameworks – through digital organizing, community-building, and local peace initiatives. They are decentralized, intersectional, and often deeply embedded in lived experience. However, without structural support or political legitimacy, these movements remain precarious. Across Southeast Asia, youth-led forums and networks – such as the ASEAN Youth Forum and the ASEAN Youth Organization – are engaging with regional institutions on issues of peace and security. These forms of contemporary resistance echo the activism of earlier generations, yet they also reflect the changing realities of how young people mobilize, advocate, and build peace across Southeast Asia today. A focus on youth in peace and conflict studies is crucial – not because of the so-called 'problematic youth bulge' or high 'demographic dividend,' but rather to explore opportunities for breaking cycles of intergenerational violence and achieving just and lasting peace. The paradox of youth engagement is not unique to Southeast Asia. It can shed light on broader dynamics of power, hierarchy, and institutionalization, revealing universal patterns and complexities that emerge as young activists transition into institutional roles. Understanding these layered challenges of exclusion across time enriches our understanding of why youth continue to be sidelined, even within the systems they helped build. This article expands on the findings of a research paper published in The Pacific Review; an international relations journal covering the interactions of the countries of the Asia-Pacific.
The Diplomat
21 hours ago
- The Diplomat
India, Philippines Strengthen Partnership Amid China Challenge, US Unpredictability
India and the Philippines have embarked on a new chapter in bilateral relations with special emphasis on bolstering security and economic ties. The decision to upgrade their relationship, which was announced during the visit of Philippines' President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. to India on August 4-8, comes amid a sharp uptick in security challenges posed by China across Asia and Southeast Asia, particularly in the South China Sea, and growing disquiet over U.S. security commitment to its partners and allies in meeting the China challenge in Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific. Marcos' visit coincided with India and the Philippines marking 75 years of diplomatic relations. Bilateral ties have been largely problem-free but were not particularly close during the Cold War decades when the two countries were on opposite sides of the divide. Subsequently, even as India focused on forging stronger economic ties with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which the Philippines is a part, China emerged as the Philippines' main partner. It is only in recent years, in the context of an aggressive China in their neighborhood, that India and the Philippines have recognized an alignment of their security interests. Speaking at a media event in New Delhi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi pointed out that while modern diplomatic ties may be recent, India's civilizational connection with the Philippines goes back centuries. 'The Philippine version of the [ancient Hindu epic] Ramayana—'Maharadia Lawana' is living proof of our deep-rooted cultural bond,' Modi said. In addition to elevating their relationship to a strategic partnership, the two sides said they would boost their economic partnership by growing bilateral trade from the current $3 billion. To do this, Modi said the two countries would aim to quickly wrap up a review of the India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, first signed in 2009. Separately, India and the Philippines would work towards a bilateral Preferential Trade Agreement, Modi said. Direct flights will connect India and the Philippines to support business and tourism. Both sides have decided to ease visa rules to facilitate tourism. On security ties, Modi said the defense partnership was a 'symbol of the deep mutual trust between our two countries. As maritime nations, cooperation in the maritime domain is both natural and essential.' Modi also referred to the first-ever naval exercises between the two countries that concluded as Marcos arrived in New Delhi. The 'bilateral maritime cooperative activity' is said to have taken place near the Scarborough Shoal, a major flashpoint in the maritime dispute between China and the Philippines. India's interest in the South China Sea stems from the fact that almost 55 percent of its trade passes through the South China Sea and the Malacca Straits. Modi also welcomed the Philippines' decision to join the India-based International Fusion Centre, which tracks the movement of ships in the Indian Ocean region. India considers Manila an important part of its Indo-Pacific, Indian Ocean, and ASEAN strategies, Modi added. 'Both countries face a rising challenge from China in freedom of navigation and sea lanes of communication,' Anil Wadhwa, a former Indian foreign ministry official, told The Diplomat. Additionally, 'in the case of the Philippines, there is a dispute over islands in the South China Sea.' As for India, 'it faces tensions on the land border with China. Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean is growing and their use of Pakistan as a proxy state to challenge the Indian Navy's presence in the Indian Ocean' are of concern to India. 'That is why the Philippines and India are cooperating in maritime domain awareness, naval and coast guards exchanges, and joint exercises,' Wadhwa said. In his remarks, Marcos said he viewed his India visit as a 'reaffirmation' of the 'alliance and the partnership that we are strengthening.' He pointed out that what was once referred to as the Asia Pacific region is now being referred to as the Indo-Pacific region, 'a correct evolution of that understanding because of the global nature of politics, all of trade and economy.' Later, Marcos said that the bilateral relationship had entered a 'new epoch' with the launch of the strategic partnership between the two countries. The conversation with Modi was 'far reaching,' 'productive,' and 'forward looking,' Marcos said; one of the decisions was the 'levelling up' of security cooperation. The blueprint drawn up for the strategic partnership stated that both countries will intensify dialogue and engagement in the maritime domain, promote coordination between maritime authorities and law enforcement agencies, collaborate in the production of defense equipment, and encourage investments and joint initiatives in defense research and supply chain ecosystem. The blueprint also called for full respect and adherence to international law, particularly on the rights and obligations of States under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and its dispute settlement mechanisms, and expressed concern over coercive and aggressive actions that impact regional peace. Analysts say the emphasis on security in the India-Philippines partnership is natural, given the Marcos government's emphasis on territorial defense in the wake of its tensions with China. 'While in the past, Philippines-India ties were largely limited to issues of low politics, today, Manila has incorporated India into its security calculations as a credible and trusted defense partner at a time when China has been increasing its provocations and unilateralism in the West Philippine Sea,' former Indian foreign ministry official Anil Trigunayat and Filipino scholar Don Mclain Gill pointed out in a joint article in Firstpost. The Philippines is the first country to which India exported the Russia-India co-produced Brahmos missiles. Adding another layer of uncertainty to matters in the region are doubts about the U.S. commitment to its Asian allies and partners, especially in the context of Trump insisting that Europe pay for its own defense. Trump's tariffs have also frayed ties with countries, casting doubts over cooperation in groups like Quad and AUKUS. 'Trump is bringing unpredictability to U.S. behavior in the future in safeguarding the interests of the littoral states in the South China Sea, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean,' diplomat Wadhwa said, adding that countries like the Philippines and Taiwan are unsure whether their interests vis-à-vis China will be sacrificed by the U.S. for what it sees as its own strategic interests.' Given the many imponderables in the current international scenario, it makes sense for countries with common interests to come together and forge bonds based on shared concerns. India and the Philippines have identified areas of convergence and are now building on those to weather the unpredictability of the times.
Asahi Shimbun
a day ago
- Asahi Shimbun
Hundreds of Buddhist monks in Cambodia gather to praise ceasefire with Thailand and mourn the dead
Cambodian Buddhist monks march on a street as they organize a ceremony to offer prayers to the remains of the soldiers who sacrificed their lives in battle, with Thai troops along the disputed border areas, and also perform pilgrimages for peace. in Phnom Penh on Aug. 8. (AP Photo) PHNOM PENH--Hundreds of Buddhist monks in Cambodia on Friday held a religious ceremony to honor soldiers killed in recent border clashes with Thai forces and to pray for peace. They marched from the country's main religious school near the Royal Palace in the capital, Phnom Penh, to a nearby temple, where they were joined by nuns and laymen and women. The monks chanted and prayed to honor the souls of the dead soldiers. A board inside the temple displayed the photographs of more than 40 men in uniform. It wasn't clear whether these images were of soldiers killed or included those who were wounded and captured. Cambodia has admitted only to the deaths of six of its troops in the fighting, which began late last month and continued for five days. Dozens of people on both sides, including civilians, were killed in the fighting and over 260,000 displaced on both sides of the border. A ceasefire that took effect on July 29 ended major fighting, though both sides have alleged violations of the truce and the underlying dispute over territorial claims has not been resolved. Khem Sorn, the chief monk for Phnom Penh, said the main purpose of Friday's ceremony was to show support to the government for working toward peace and ending the war with a ceasefire. It was also intended to honor to the souls of the Cambodian soldiers and civilians who were killed, and to appeal to all Buddhist countries, especially Thailand, to live in peace with each other, he told The Associated Press in a phone interview. 'It means that we only want to live side-by-side with Thailand as a good neighbor, living with unity and peace with each other,' Khem Sorn said. The recent fighting was triggered by a land mine explosion in disputed land along the border that wounded five Thai soldiers. That came just a week after a similar incident. It was the latest eruption of hostilities in a decades-old dispute over ownership of several small pockets of territory along the 800-kilometer (500-mile) land border. Under pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened to delay crucial trade talks, the two countries agreed to a ceasefire on July 28. Talks in Malaysia on Thursday reaffirmed both sides' commitment to the ceasefire deal but failed to secure the release of 18 Cambodian soldiers, who were captured in disputed circumstances after the truce went into effect. Thailand says it is treating the men in full compliance with international humanitarian law and will free them once 'active hostilities' end. The United States and China, which both played an active role in encouraging an end to the fighting, separately hailed Thursday's reaffirmation of the ceasefire, and said they look forward to supporting the parties involved in securing the peace process.
